Rodriguez v. People, 22766
| Decision Date | 17 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 22766,22766 |
| Citation | 168 Colo. 190,450 P.2d 645 |
| Parties | Charles R. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Brenman, Ciancio, Rossman & Baum, Leo T. Zuckerman, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Denver, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., James F. Pamp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Charles R. Rodriguez was charged with and found guilty of larceny from a motor vehicle of property of the value of more than $5, and conspiracy to commit this crime. He received concurrent sentences on these jury verdicts.
By this writ of error, defendant Rodriguez urges reversal on the grounds that:
(1) There was no competent evidence from which the jury could determine the value of the stolen property;
(2) That the trial court improperly permitted the introduction of photographs of the property taken rather than the property itself in violation of the best evidence rule;
(3) The trial court erroneously denied defendant's motion for a continuance to locate a witness; and
(4) The trial court erred in submitting an instruction on accessory to the jury.
On the evening of October 27, 1964, two police officers saw defendant reach with a long bar into the front part of the open bed of a parked pickup truck, and use the bar to pull a tool box toward him. One Gallegos, who was with the defendant, then removed the tool box from the truck, and defendant opened the door of an automobile parked in front of the truck so that Gallegos could put the tool box inside. The officers promptly arrested the two men. Gallegos, the defendant's co-participant, died prior to trial.
The defendant's first contention, namely, the alleged lack of competent evidence to establish the value of the property taken, we find to be without merit. C.R.S.1963, 40--5--10(2) () provides that to constitute larceny from a mtor vehicle the property taken therefrom must have a value of more than $5. The owner of the tool box testified as to the replacement value of the box and contents, and upon objection by defendant, his testimony was stricken. Thereafter, the prosecution, although not required to do so as hereinafter pointed out, laid a foundation for the owner to testify as an expert witness. He testified on direct examination, Without objection, that the box was worth about $5, a set of socket wrenches which were in the box was worth about $25, and the miscellaneous tools in the box had a value of at least $150. In addition, the owner testified that there were 25 socket wrenches and about 100 miscellaneous tools in the box at the time of the theft. The jury in its verdict on the first count found the value of the stolen property to be in excess of $10.
The rule is clear in this jurisdiction that an owner is always competent to testify as to the value of his property. Burns v. People, 148 Colo. 245, 365 P.2d 698. Defendant argues that the owner's testimony as to value is incompetent, because on cross-examination the owner testified, 'I know what they (the tools) are worth, but I don't know what you could get for them.' Defendant's position is that the evidence of fair market value is prerequisite to establishing value. In the Burns case, Supra, defendant contended that the owner's testimony as to the value of used tools stolen was incompetent because he testified as to his original cost, and the tools were used. The court rejected the contention, stating:
We affirm the rule so stated and adopt the reasoning as applicable to the case at bar. We also note that the record is undisputed that approximately 125 tools were in the tool box, and this quantity together with the owner's testimony would substantiate a value of over $5 for the tool box and its contents.
We also find to be without merit the defendant's second contention, namely, that the trial court erred in permitting photographs of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McCoy
...McCord was competent to testify regarding the value of the VCRs as an owner 3 of the items involved. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. People, 168 Colo. 190, 193, 450 P.2d 645, 647 (1969) (owner is always competent to testify as to value); Burns, 148 Colo. at 251, 365 P.2d at 701 (same). Thus, both t......
-
People v. Manier
...instructions in his motion for a new trial. We are not required to review the arguments raised here for the first time. Rodriguez v. People, 168 Colo. 190, 450 P.2d 645; Mathis v. People, 167 Colo. 504, 448 P.2d 633, and we do not do so unless fundamental error appears. People v. Archuleta,......
-
State v. Jacobs
...State v. Hall, 171 W.Va. 212, 298 S.E.2d 246 (1982); State v. Cokeley, 159 W.Va. 664, 226 S.E.2d 40 (1976). See also Rodriquez v. People, 168 Colo. 190, 450 P.2d 645 (1969); Saunders v. U. S., 317 A.2d 867 (D.C.App.1974); State v. Matzker, 500 S.W.2d 54 We now address the ineffective assist......
-
State v. Ballenberger, 17619
...example, State v. Bouillon, 112 Ariz. 238, 540 P.2d 1219 (1975); State v. Landlee, 85 N.M. 726, 516 P.2d 697 (1973); Rodriguez v. People, 168 Colo. 190, 450 P.2d 645 (1969). ...
-
The Use of Demonstrative Evidence in Criminal Cases
...Mow v. People, 31 Colo. 351, 72 P. 1069 (1903). 30. Id. 31. Green v. Denver, 111 Colo. 390, 142 P.2d 277 (1943). 32. Rodriguez v. People, 168 Colo. 190, 450 P.2d 645 (1969). 33. Maynes v. People, 169 Colo. 186, 454 P.2d 797 (1969). 34. Casias v. People, 160 Colo. 152, 415 P.2d 344 (1966). 3......